W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Working Group Decision on ISSUE-91: Removing the aside Element

From: Leif Halvard Silli <xn--mlform-iua@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 02:53:42 +0200
To: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Cc: Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net>, public-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20100602025342926581.0789cd75@xn--mlform-iua.no>
Shelley Powers, Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:03:45 -0500:
> Sam Ruby wrote:
>> On 06/01/2010 06:45 PM, Shelley Powers wrote:
>>> 
>>> Neither of the decisions addresses the other HTML audiences, such as web
>>> developers, designers, tech writers, tool builders, and so on.
>> 
>> I personally spent considerable time scanning the web to see if I 
>> could substantiate the claims that these elements were too complex 
>> for these audiences.  What I found instead was plenty of instances 
>> where people were welcoming these changes, often eagerly.

> The real point is: who asked for these elements either in the WhatWG 
> group, or in the W3C? 

A figure like solution has been discussed long and hard: XHTML2 
suggested a <caption> to the <object> element. HTML-before-4 had a 
<fig> element. And the very issue of offering captions to elements has 
been discussed many times in tutorials etc. So this issue seems worth 
solving in HTML5.

Btw: I can say that when I first started to look at HTML5, then 
<figure> was one of the elements that I first caught my interest. I 
immediately linked it to <object> -and interpreted it as variant of 
<object>, so to speak. Though, I am not sure that this is how those 
that placed it into HTML5 thought of it.
-- 
leif halvard silli
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 00:54:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 9 May 2012 00:17:09 GMT